1. Title, director and release year?
The Yes Men Fix the World, Andy Bichlbaum, Mike Bonanno, Kurt Engfehr, 2009
2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
The central argument of this film is that the actions being taken by the government and corporations in this country are almost humorously twisted. In fact, some people don’t even realize how ridiculous some of the stunts that the Yes Men pull even are and think that they are business as usual. This is the case when the Yes Men present their survivaball. Obviously created to be ridiculous, the suit is taken to be a possible protection device for a man protecting troops in Iraq. The same thing happens when they presented a risk assessment calculator factoring in human life. Professionals took this seriously. In a world where such silly or horrifying stunts can be taken as normal, isn’t there something truly wrong with our society.
The Yes Men think so, and Andy and Mike go on to even show how easy it would be for companies to do the right thing. Posing as major corporations or government officials, they make announcements showing their “company’s” intent to do human kind a service. Ask the people and they say that this service is a godsend, others think that it is a sign of humanity, but the facts turned out to be very different. In the event where Andy announced for Dow Chemical’s cleanup of a city in India ravaged by toxic chemicals, the stock plunged. The investors wanted nothing to do with any philanthropic projects. So, how is it that businesses could do the right thing without getting punished?
The Yes Men seem to think that the answer to this question lies somewhere is restructuring our minds away from current western ideas that we have become accustomed to as shown by the interview with Mike after the screening of this film.
3. How is the argument or narrative made and sustained? How much scientific information is provided, for example? Does the film have emotional appeal?
The narrative follows the Yes Men is a pseudo-journey (it was all scripted in reality) through their attempt to shine some light on the ridiculousness of the policies in place today. Another example is the creation of Vivolium, a human-derived fuel. The point of this presentation was to show how desperate people are going to become for a constant fuel source once oil supplies begin to dwindle. The film didn’t really have much emotional appeal other than comedy except in the rare instances of interviewing someone truly devastated by an event such as hurricane Katrina.
4. What sustainability problems does the film draw out? Political? Legal? Economic? Technological? Media and Informational? Organizational? Educational? Behavioral? Cultural? Ecological?
This film examines both the political, behavioral, and cultural problems within our society. The politics of how and why businesses today are run are examined, the mindset that the people must get in able to make the choice that they do, and how we as a people have gotten used to the ridiculous policies that have been set in place and not questioned for year. In the Katrina example, the Government was moving poor people out of the city and destroying their old homes so that they couldn’t come back without a larger income to rent the nicer houses. Since all involved in a power position profited, nothing happened. After the statement by the Yes Men, people began to truly question the decision to close down these projects. In this sense, an education of the people was indirectly examined as well.
5. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
The part of the film that I found most compelling the was Vivolium candle demonstration. In most of the other pranks throughout the movie, the Yes Men were either rushed offstage or taken seriously. This was the one demonstration where the people in the audience were visibly horrified with what had happened. In this sense, I think that the raw emotion made a larger impact than any other part of the film. I wonder if the guy was really turned into a candle. I don’t know how I would react to having a candle made out of him either. This is not a new idea as seen by the movie Soylent Green which depicted humans being processed for food pellets. I really don’t believe that such uses for humans is too far off. There are 7 billion of us and all of it is going to waste once we kick the big one, might as well use it for something. It’ll be just another tick on the driver’s license: organ donor, blood, fuel donor, food donor.
6. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Why?
I was not entirely convinced by the title of the movie. The Yes Men set out to fix the world, but I don’t think that they really did. I mean, don’t get me wrong, I really enjoyed the film, but I have to sit back and wonder whether anything was really accomplished. Since a lot of these situations were embarrassing or false, they got swept under the rug fairly quickly. I don’t know if there is a lasting impression. Watching another documentary on, let’s say the food industry, will most likely be relevant for a long time. By the time that this movie came out, a lot of the topical information was outdated. I guess the important thing to keep in mind is that the point that they are trying to make is that we, as a culture, have begun to put a price on human life, and it is very low.
7. What audiences does the film best address? Why?
I think that this film best addresses the very businessmen that the yes man pranked. We see that what they are doing is ridiculous as is some current business practices. If these executives,
8. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?
I think that if some real, tangible solutions could have been given to me at the end of the movie, I would have had more drive to go out and do something. I felt like at the end, nothing had really changed all that much really. I think if anything, the movie gave me more insight on how resistant the current systems are to change.
9. What kinds of action and points of intervention are suggested by the film? If the film itself does not suggest corrective action, describe actions that you can imagine being effective.
Kind of explained above. 10. What additional information has this film compelled you to seek out? (Provide at least two supporting references.)
So, I found out that there was some action against those involved with the Bhopal disaster. Eight people were arrested, albeit for only two years, for these crimes. I don’t know why more legal actions like this aren’t taken by the US in instances of flagrant misplacement of values and risk factors by large corporations. More should have been done in the Bhopal case, but it was portrayed like there was nothing. Shows how information from both sides can be misleading. http://www.mlive.com/business/mid-michigan/index.ssf/2011/11/is_the_bhopal_disaster_still_c.html
After the interview with Mike Bannano, I wanted to look more into the idea of capitalism as a sustainability problem since the Yes Men seem to be so against it. In this paper, it shows how capitalism can have less work hours and still keep relative growth. I am not entirely convinced that it is sustainable, but maybe as sustainable as any other political system out there. I mean, no system is perfect. This makes me think that the idea of capitalism may still be viable. The current state of our economy, however, is a different matter altogether. http://www.preservenet.com/studies/FallacyCapitalismGrowth.pdf
The Yes Men Fix the World, Andy Bichlbaum, Mike Bonanno, Kurt Engfehr, 2009
2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
The central argument of this film is that the actions being taken by the government and corporations in this country are almost humorously twisted. In fact, some people don’t even realize how ridiculous some of the stunts that the Yes Men pull even are and think that they are business as usual. This is the case when the Yes Men present their survivaball. Obviously created to be ridiculous, the suit is taken to be a possible protection device for a man protecting troops in Iraq. The same thing happens when they presented a risk assessment calculator factoring in human life. Professionals took this seriously. In a world where such silly or horrifying stunts can be taken as normal, isn’t there something truly wrong with our society.
The Yes Men think so, and Andy and Mike go on to even show how easy it would be for companies to do the right thing. Posing as major corporations or government officials, they make announcements showing their “company’s” intent to do human kind a service. Ask the people and they say that this service is a godsend, others think that it is a sign of humanity, but the facts turned out to be very different. In the event where Andy announced for Dow Chemical’s cleanup of a city in India ravaged by toxic chemicals, the stock plunged. The investors wanted nothing to do with any philanthropic projects. So, how is it that businesses could do the right thing without getting punished?
The Yes Men seem to think that the answer to this question lies somewhere is restructuring our minds away from current western ideas that we have become accustomed to as shown by the interview with Mike after the screening of this film.
3. How is the argument or narrative made and sustained? How much scientific information is provided, for example? Does the film have emotional appeal?
The narrative follows the Yes Men is a pseudo-journey (it was all scripted in reality) through their attempt to shine some light on the ridiculousness of the policies in place today. Another example is the creation of Vivolium, a human-derived fuel. The point of this presentation was to show how desperate people are going to become for a constant fuel source once oil supplies begin to dwindle. The film didn’t really have much emotional appeal other than comedy except in the rare instances of interviewing someone truly devastated by an event such as hurricane Katrina.
4. What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
Political? Legal? Economic? Technological? Media and Informational?
Organizational? Educational? Behavioral? Cultural? Ecological?
This film examines both the political, behavioral, and cultural problems within our society. The politics of how and why businesses today are run are examined, the mindset that the people must get in able to make the choice that they do, and how we as a people have gotten used to the ridiculous policies that have been set in place and not questioned for year. In the Katrina example, the Government was moving poor people out of the city and destroying their old homes so that they couldn’t come back without a larger income to rent the nicer houses. Since all involved in a power position profited, nothing happened. After the statement by the Yes Men, people began to truly question the decision to close down these projects. In this sense, an education of the people was indirectly examined as well.
5. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
The part of the film that I found most compelling the was Vivolium candle demonstration. In most of the other pranks throughout the movie, the Yes Men were either rushed offstage or taken seriously. This was the one demonstration where the people in the audience were visibly horrified with what had happened. In this sense, I think that the raw emotion made a larger impact than any other part of the film. I wonder if the guy was really turned into a candle. I don’t know how I would react to having a candle made out of him either. This is not a new idea as seen by the movie Soylent Green which depicted humans being processed for food pellets. I really don’t believe that such uses for humans is too far off. There are 7 billion of us and all of it is going to waste once we kick the big one, might as well use it for something. It’ll be just another tick on the driver’s license: organ donor, blood, fuel donor, food donor.
6. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Why?
I was not entirely convinced by the title of the movie. The Yes Men set out to fix the world, but I don’t think that they really did. I mean, don’t get me wrong, I really enjoyed the film, but I have to sit back and wonder whether anything was really accomplished. Since a lot of these situations were embarrassing or false, they got swept under the rug fairly quickly. I don’t know if there is a lasting impression. Watching another documentary on, let’s say the food industry, will most likely be relevant for a long time. By the time that this movie came out, a lot of the topical information was outdated. I guess the important thing to keep in mind is that the point that they are trying to make is that we, as a culture, have begun to put a price on human life, and it is very low.
7. What audiences does the film best address? Why?
I think that this film best addresses the very businessmen that the yes man pranked. We see that what they are doing is ridiculous as is some current business practices. If these executives,
8. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?
I think that if some real, tangible solutions could have been given to me at the end of the movie, I would have had more drive to go out and do something. I felt like at the end, nothing had really changed all that much really. I think if anything, the movie gave me more insight on how resistant the current systems are to change.
9. What kinds of action and points of intervention are suggested by the film? If the film itself does not suggest corrective action, describe actions that you can imagine being effective.
Kind of explained above.
10. What additional information has this film compelled you to seek out? (Provide at least two supporting references.)
So, I found out that there was some action against those involved with the Bhopal disaster. Eight people were arrested, albeit for only two years, for these crimes. I don’t know why more legal actions like this aren’t taken by the US in instances of flagrant misplacement of values and risk factors by large corporations. More should have been done in the Bhopal case, but it was portrayed like there was nothing. Shows how information from both sides can be misleading.
http://www.mlive.com/business/mid-michigan/index.ssf/2011/11/is_the_bhopal_disaster_still_c.html
After the interview with Mike Bannano, I wanted to look more into the idea of capitalism as a sustainability problem since the Yes Men seem to be so against it. In this paper, it shows how capitalism can have less work hours and still keep relative growth. I am not entirely convinced that it is sustainable, but maybe as sustainable as any other political system out there. I mean, no system is perfect. This makes me think that the idea of capitalism may still be viable. The current state of our economy, however, is a different matter altogether.
http://www.preservenet.com/studies/FallacyCapitalismGrowth.pdf